The New York Times checks in with some of the towns and cities that passed draconian anti-immigrant measures. The results were so shocking, so unpredictable, that... well, actually, they were pretty predictable.
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town's already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
"I don't think people knew there would be such an economic burden," said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. "A lot of people did not look three years out."
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
Other reader comments on this article
Comment
By
Date
Congrats, Alicia. Thanks for waking everybody up. The news today is that Spitzer has abandonned the plan [MORE]
toting m ama
Nov 14, 2007 00:28
Ms. Colon, you are spot on. THank you for your common sense commentary on Spitzer's terribly ill-advised and ill-timed decision... [MORE]
Mariann Davies
Oct 11, 2007 16:45
David Weigel | September 26, 2007, 8:51am
The New York Times checks in with some of the towns and cities that...